Early Eye Disengagement Is Regulated by Task Complexity and Task Repetition in Visual Tracking Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding human actions often requires in-depth detection and interpretation of bio-signals. Early eye disengagement from the target (EEDT) represents a significant eye behavior that involves the proactive disengagement of the gazes from the target to gather information on the anticipated pathway, thereby enabling rapid reactions to the environment. It remains unknown how task difficulty and task repetition affect EEDT. We aim to provide direct evidence of how these factors influence EEDT. We developed a visual tracking task in which participants viewed arrow movement videos while their eye movements were tracked. The task complexity was increased by increasing movement steps. Every movement pattern was performed twice to assess the effect of repetition on eye movement. Participants were required to recall the movement patterns for recall accuracy evaluation and complete cognitive load assessment. EEDT was quantified by the fixation duration and frequency within the areas of eye before arrow. When task difficulty increased, we found the recall accuracy score decreased, the cognitive load increased, and EEDT decreased significantly. The EEDT was higher in the second trial, but significance only existed in tasks with lower complexity. EEDT was positively correlated with recall accuracy and negatively correlated with cognitive load. Performing EEDT was reduced by task complexity and increased by task repetition. EEDT may be a promising sensory measure for assessing task performance and cognitive load and can be used for the future development of eye-tracking-based sensors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".